Transcript Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions by Mode/Power Source in g/km

(Overview)
Reasons to Maximize Trolleybus Usage in
Edmonton
*
Extensive existing infrastructure in good condition; many good, low mileage vehicles.
*
Lowers per unit cost of trolley operations and achieves better investment return
*
Positive contribution to environmental initiatives and the city’s image:
- reduces toxic pollutants from city-owned vehicles; lowering effect on health costs
- lower noise levels
- better long-term potential to reduce greenhouse gases than other bus modes
- high level of environmental advantages for cost of investment
*
Public preference for trolleys over diesels
*
Congruent with Transportation Master Plan and Plan Edmonton:
- makes effective and efficient use of the transportation system and infrastructure
- mitigates community and environmental impacts of transportation
- enhances image as ‘smart’ city
(Chart 1)
(Chart 2)
Capital Annual Equivalent Vehicle Costs vs. Kilometres
Operated
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
total annual km
operated in millions
capital vehicle cost
annual equivalent in
$ per km
0
89 9 90 9 91 9 92 9 93 9 94 9 95 9 96 9 97
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Capital vehicle cost annual equivalent is based upon the purchase price of $21 million for 100 BBC trolleys (1982) spread over
a 30 year expected life.
Note that the two figures are inversely related. The greater the annual decrease in km operated, the higher the capital vehicle
cost annual equivalent per km will be.
(Data Source: ETS)
(Chart 3)
Total Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions per Million Kilometres
(in tonnes)
35
33.07
30
25
18.82
20
15
9.31
10
5
0
0
se l
e
i
D
vg.
A
et
Fle
an
e
l
C
Toxic Air Contaminants include Hydrocarbons,
Carbon Monoxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, Sulphur
Oxides, Particulate Matter.
se l
e
i
D
o
Tr
bu
y
e
ll
s (E
wr
P
d
g.)
v
A
T
u
eyb
l
l
ro
in
w
(
s
)
wr
p
d
Data Sources: ETS (1993), TransLink (1999),
Edmonton Power (1993)
(Chart 4)
Comparative Noise Levels by Mode
(in decibels)
• Hearing loss occurs
at levels of 90 db or
higher
• The electric trolley
measures around
175 times quieter
than the diesel bus
• A Philadelphia
study showed that
the passing of a
trolleybus could
not be heard above
the ambient street
noise
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Diesel
CNG
Fuel Cell
Trolleybus
City Street
Adapted from Coast Mountain Bus Company
(Vancouver); KC Metro (Seattle).
(Chart 5)
Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends
(in g/km of CO2e*)
3500
3000
2500
2000
Diesel (Fleet Avg.)
Trolley (Alta. Grid)
1500
1000
500
0
1990
1994
1997
2001
2005
2008
*CO2 Equivalent – includes greenhouse gas values for emissions of CO, NOx,
N2O, CH4.
Data Sources: ETS (1993), TransLink (1999), NAAVC, TransAlta Utilities
(Chart 6)
Transit Vehicle Preferences in Edmonton
In 1993, Edmontonians were surveyed to find out what kinds of transit modes they would like to see the City
invest in for the year 2000 and beyond. Significant among the 504 responses relating to mode were the following:
More LRT
More Trol l eybuses
More Di esel Buses
Most CostEffecti ve
0
50
100
150
200
250
- 4/5 of all respondents to the survey preferred electrically powered transit modes (LRT, trolleybuses) over other choices.
- 60% of comments on diesel buses mentioned fumes, noxious smoke and air pollution as the main feature they noticed. Only
15% of comments about diesel buses were positive.
- A majority of respondents (59%) disagreed with investing in diesel buses.
- Around 2/3 (65%) of all respondents said they would stick with their choices of preferred vehicle investment even if the
costs associated with those vehicles were higher.
Source: Edmonton Transit Vehicles Survey, Marktrend (1993)
Edmonton – Environmentally First Class
Now . . .
And in
the
Future!
(Chart 7)
Recent Developments on the Trolleybus Scene I
Some Highlights from other Canadian and U.S. Cities
City
Boston
Approx. Active Fleet
40 Flyer (1976)
Recent Developments
Current fleet to be replaced w. new trolleys; new route planned east of Downtown
Boston to use Neoplan articulated low floor trolleys.
Cleveland
30 Neoplan artic
Dayton
Philadelphia
San Francisco
57 ETI/Skoda (1998-99)
66 AM General (1979)
276 Flyer (1976-77)
60 Flyer artic (1993)
102 AM General (1979)
46 MAN artic (1986 )
236 Breda artic dual mode
(1990)
244 Flyer (1982-83)
Seattle
Vancouver
NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM! 5 mile long route in planning for Euclid Avenue
to use articulated low floor trolleys. Trolley usage expected to boost ridership
by at least 10% and help revitalize Euclid corridor.
Fleet renewed in 1998-99; last of four new extensions opened August 20, 2000.
$44 M in budget for new trolleys, 2004-2011.
Fleet currently undergoing renewal with new 40 and 60 foot trolleys from ETI/Skoda.
AM General fleet to be ‘rebodied’ using 100 40 ft. Gillig bodies on order and
updated/refurbished electrics and controls; construction on an extension to Rte. 36 to
start within a year.
Over 200 new low floor trolleys to come in next five years; new 1 km extension into
Stanley Park to be completed next year.
(Sept. 2000)
Data sources: International Trolleybus News List, Trolleybus Magazine
Recent Developments on the Trolleybus Scene II
-
There are approximately 350 electric trolleybus systems worldwide
37 new trolleybus systems were opened in the last decade
Some Highlights from around the World
Linz, Austria – New Volvo low floor articulated trolleys arriving; system expansion.
Sao Paulo, Brazil – Eleven route extensions under consideration; work progressing on Fura Fila articulated
guided trolleybus line.
Beijing, China – New route recently opened, another existing line recently extended.
Guangzhou, China – $70 million trolley system expansion planned to include 49 km of new overhead. Fleet
will be expanded to 350 trolleybuses to operate on 11 routes.
Hong Kong, China – NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM? Proposing to introduce trolleybuses to replace diesel
buses on heavily used routes to reduce pollution. Demonstration line to be ready in near future.
Shanghai, China – New air conditioned low floor trolleybuses entering service.
Brno, Czechoslovakia – New route to open in September, 2000; new Škoda trolleys arriving.
Quito, Ecuador – 59 new trolleybuses entered service this year. Quito’s large, ultra-modern trolleybus line
that uses articulated vehicles, platform loading and operates on a right-of-way is being extended.
London, England – NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM? London Transport is considering implementing
trolleybuses on four routes for environmental reasons and to boost patronage.
Nancy, France – New trolleys bearing the mark of the designer ‘Pinifarina’ to appear sometime in Fall 2000.
Paris, France – NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM! A 6.5 km route is to be constructed for guided trolleybuses.
Athens, Greece – Taking delivery of 200 brand new low floor trolleybuses in preparation for the Olympic
Games.
Arnhem, Holland – Launched “Trolley 2000” last year, a public transportation plan that will place renewed
emphasis on the city’s trolleybus system in the 21 st century as a practical and environmentally-friendly
way of travel. Trolleybuses carry signs: “Arnhem – Trolley Stad” (“Arnhem – Trolley City”).
Naples, Italy – New fleet of low floor trolleybuses began arriving in February, 2000.
Mexico City, Mexico – New Mitsubishi trolleybuses recently added to fleet.
Moscow, Russia – 271 new trolleybuses were purchased in 1999, adding to a trolley fleet of over 1,000
vehicles.
Bern, Switzerland – New batch of low floor Swisstrolleys now in operation.
Lausanne, Switzerland – Extensions in progress; Neoplan to test a 25 m, three-section mega-trolleybus in
Lausanne in the near future.
Merida, Venezuela – NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM! Construction of a new 18 km segregated, high platform
trolleybus route is underway.
(Sept. 2000)
Data Sources: International Trolleybus News List, Trolleybus Magazine
Trolleybus Route Length per 1,000 Inhabitants in selected Cities
(in Kilometres)
Dayton
Zurich
Edmonton
Sao Paulo
Lausanne
Brno
Athens
San Francisco
Quito
Mexico City
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Source: Trolleybus Study for Hong Kong (Ecotraffic, 1999)
0.8
1
1.2
Comparative Average Power Consumption for 40 ft. Trolleybuses
(in kWh per km)
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
•
•
•
2.8
2.6
Dayton
2.7
2.5
San
Francisco
Seattle
An accepted standard value for trolley
power consumption is 3 kWh per km.
The chart at the left compares average
power consumption for trolleybuses in
four North American cities.
The highest power consumption
recorded during San Francisco tests
was on the 41 Union line which climbs
the steep Union Street Hill. Tests
showed a power consumption of 3.6
kWh/km on this line. Vehicles were
not “chopper” control equipped.
Vancouver
Data Sources: LACTC and RTD Trolleybus Study (1991),
BCTransit (1994)
Comparative Energy Consumption
(in MJ per vehicle km)
25
24.1
20
15
9.84
10
5
0
Diesel bus
Trolleybus
Source: BC Transit (1994)
Edmonton – A “Green” City?
Description of Transportation Emissions
Hydrocarbons: Essentially unburned fuel. Hydrocarbons are a significant contributor to poor air quality. In sunlight, they combine with NOx to form ground level
ozone (smog).
Carbon Monoxide: A toxic gas that induces headaches, loss of visual acuity, drowsiness and decreased motor coordination. Contributes to smog as it combines in
the atmosphere with NOx. Also implicated in global warming as a greenhouse gas and typically assigned a GWP value of 1.6 or 3.0.
Oxides of Nitrogen: A mixture of oxides of nitrogen, including nitrous oxide (N2O), that results in the brown composition of smog and is a significant contributor
to poor air quality. A primary target of emissions reduction programs in urban areas. NOx has been shown to affect health, suppress growth of vegetation and
corrode metals. It essentially combines with other pollutants to form ground level ozone, negatively affecting the air quality index. Ground level ozone or smog is a
major concern in Canadian cities, particularly during the summer months. NOx also combines with atmospheric water to produce nitric acid, a component of acid
rain. NOx is considered a greenhouse gas and is typically assigned a GWP value of 7.
Oxides of Sulphur: Substances formed by the combustion of sulphur in fuel, including sulphur dioxide (SO2). Oxides of sulphur react with atmospheric water to
form sulphuric acid and are thus considered a contributor to acid rain. They are also a lung irritant. In terms of global warming, they have been shown to exert a
global cooling effect.
Particulate Matter: Inhaleable particles like small particles of oil, fuel, carbon and soot. They affect the respiratory system, causing asthma and other respiratory
ailments. (Respiratory ailments are the fourth leading cause of death in the industrialized world and a growing health concern; asthma alone costs some $11 billion
in health dollars annually in the U.S. and is a continuing health concern in Edmonton.) Diesel engines are responsible for a large percentage of particulate matter
produced by transportation sources.
Volatile Organic Compounds: Form noxious aerosols which are inhaled and can contribute to lung problems and asthma.
Carbon Dioxide: A greenhouse gas, considered the primary contributor to global warming and climate change. Assigned a GWP value of 1.
*GWP = Global Warming Potential, the potential of a substance to cause global warming relative to Carbon Dioxide.
(Sources: NAAVC, TransLink, ETS, US Environmental Protection Association, Diesel Fuel News)
Toxic Air Contaminants by Mode – Current Diesel Fleet
Average vs. Edmonton Power Total for Three Plants
(in g/km)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Diesel Fleet
Avg. 2000
Hydrocarbons
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Sulphur Oxides
Particulate Matter
Trolley
(Edmonton
Power
Avg.)
Data Sources: ETS (1993), TransLink (1999),
Edmonton Power (1993)
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions by Mode/Power Source
(in g/km)
25
20
Hydrocarbons
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Sulphur Oxides
Particulate Matter
15
10
5
0
Conv.
Diesel
"Clean" Trolley
Diesel
(coal)
Trolley
(gas)
Data Sources: ETS (1993), TransLink (1999),
Edmonton Power (1993)
Total Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions per Million Kilometres
(in tonnes)
45
40
35
30
25
20
40.2
33.07
15
10
18.82
12.6
5
9.31
3.2
0
0
Conv. Die s e l
Cle an Die s e l
Curre nt Die s e l
Fle e t Avg.
Trolle y (gas )
Toxic Air Contaminants include
Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide, Oxides
of Nitrogen, Sulphur Oxides, Particulate
Matter.
Trolle y (coal)
Trolle y (Edm .
Pow e r Avg.)
Trolle y (w ind)
Data Sources: ETS (1993), TransLink (1999),
Edmonton Power (1993)
Diesel Bus Fleet Toxic Air Contaminant
Emissions per Kilometre
(in grams)
25
20
Hydrocarbons
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Sulphur Oxides
Particulate Matter
15
10
5
0
1987
2000
2008
Data Sources: ETS (1993), TransLink
(1999), NAAVC (1999)
Toxins identified in Diesel Exhaust by the EPA
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Aniline
Antimony compounds
Arsenic
Benzene
Beryllium compounds
Biphenyl
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1,3-Butadiene
Cadmium
Chlorine
Chlorobenzene
Chromium compounds
Cobalt compounds
Creosol isomers
Cyanide compounds
Dibutylphthalate
Dioxins and dibenzofurans
Ethyl benzene
Formalehyde
Inorganic lead
Manganese compounds
Mercury compounds
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Naphthalene
Nickel
4-Nitrobiphenyl
Phenol
Phosphorus
Polycyclic organic matter including polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons and their derivatives
Propionaldehyde
Selenium compounds
Styrene
Toluene
Xylene isomers and mixtures
o-xylenes
m-xylenes
p-xylenes
Sources: Natural Resources Defense Council (1998), US
Environmental Protection Association.
Diesel Exhaust is a complex mixture of
hazardous particles and vapors, some of which
are known carcinogens and other probable
carcinogens.
The US Environmental Protection Association
(California) has identified 41 substances in
diesel exhaust listed by the State of California
as” toxic air contaminants”.
A “toxic air contaminant”is defined as an “air
pollutant which may cause or contribute to an
increase in mortality or in serious illness, or
which may pose a present or potential hazard to
human health”.
In addition to, or as part of the commonly
referred to emissions of NOx, CO and
particulate matter produced by diesel engines,
the substances listed at the left have been
identified.
The immediate health threat posed by the use of
diesel engines in transit buses arises from the
fact that the toxic emissions are released
directly into the streets--right into the airways
of pedestrians and transit patrons waiting at bus
stops.
Studies of emissions from co-called ‘clean’
diesel engines reveal that, while NOx and CO
levels may be lower, the levels of toxins such as
dioxins, benzene, toluene, 1,3-butadiene and
PAH’s is essentially unchanged. While the
weight of the particulate matter is reduced
substantially, the total number of particles
emitted by ‘clean’ diesel engines is 15 to 35
times greater than by conventional diesels. The
particles are simply finer, not fewer. Finer
particles are more likely to penetrate deeper into
the lungs, where they would be trapped and
retained.
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions in Health Dollars
in Millions of Dollars per Million Kilometres
(calculated @ $75,000 per tonne)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Conv. Diesel
Clean Diesel
Current Diesel
Mix
Trolley (gas)
Trolley (coal)
Trolley (Edm.
Pow er Avg.)
Trolley (w ind)
The health impacts in dollars of vehicular emissions are difficult to quantify. Many dollar estimates exist. The above estimate of $75,000 per tonne
originates from a California study and was quoted in a recent TransLink report. Here the figure has been applied to the contaminant emissions HC, CO,
NOx, SO and Particulate Matter in the quantities emitted directly from the tailpipe or power plant. The resulting totals are doubtless high in performing
the analysis in this way. However, whether the actual cost is $75,000 per tonne or $10,000 per tonne, the relationship between the columns will be the
same: The health costs associated with diesel engines are much higher than for electric trolleys, even if the trolleys use electricity from a coal-fired
generating station.
Trolley Coach Economics
Typically in North American and Western European trolley systems, trolley buses operate overall at a slightly higher cost than
equivalent diesel buses on a cost per km basis. The higher cost mostly results from the expenditures to maintain the overhead
plant. The extra cost associated with trolley operations is usually considered a small price to pay for the benefits of reduced
pollution and quieter operation, particularly in areas with higher population density. The health costs saved through trolley
coach operation most certainly outweigh any savings in operating costs associated with diesels.
There are several factors which may influence the cost per km of trolley operations. One is the price of power, which may
fluctuate just as the price of diesel fuel or natural gas changes over time. Another very significant factor is the number of km
operated. Since the annual expenditure for overhead maintenance is a relatively fixed cost, the cost per km can be reduced
simply by operating more km.
On a cost per hour basis, the cost difference between trolleys and diesels is less significant. The cost per hour to operate a
bus in Edmonton is currently around $60.00. Because the largest portion of this are costs associated with the operator, the
type of vehicle used does not exert a huge influence on the hourly operating cost.
One must keep costs in perspective. The additional cost of operating trolleys vs. diesels on most transit systems is actually a
very small percentage of transit’s total operating expenses. In Edmonton, transit is a $100 million per year operation, with
trolley operations accounting for only a small percentage of that. Increasing the use of trolleys, whether on the existing system
or through the addition of extensions, would not result in vast increases in total operating expenses. But it would lower the
cost per km of trolley operations.
Edmontonians have an enormous capital investment in trolley infrastructure. Since the renewal and expansion of the trolley
system in the early 1980’s, over $46 million dollars have been invested in vehicles, overhead upgrades, extensions and new
power supply equipment. To build a trolley system of equivalent size to ours, at a cost of $750,000 to $1,000,000 per km, would
run upwards of $60 million dollars. In other words, the trolley system represents a huge investment in environmentally friendly
public transportation in Edmonton and ought to be used maximally. Because the trolley bus represents the cleanest proven
bus technology available on today’s market and offers the greatest emissions reductions for the lowest added cost, the trolley
system here must be considered a great asset. If we did not already have it, the cost of investing in this technology would most
certainly be judged prohibitive. Considering the investment in trolleys that Edmonton has, the cost of building moderate
extensions to put more trolleys into operation is small by comparison. Furthermore, consider that LRT costs around $17
million per km to install rails and overhead to operate LRT. When stations are included, the cost rises to $35 million per km. At
$1 million per km or less for trolley overhead, the cost of building trolley extensions is cheap by comparison.
Kilometres Operated vs. Cost per Kilometre
4
3.5
3
total annual km
operated in
millions
2.5
2
total operating
cost per km in $
1.5
1
0.5
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
0
Source: Edmonton Transit System
Operating and Overhead Costs vs. Kilometres Operated
4
3.5
total annual km
operated in
millions
3
2.5
overhead
maintenance per
km operated in
$
total operating
cost per km in $
2
1.5
1
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
0.5
0
Source: Edmonton Transit System
Average Operating Costs by Mode
in $ per Km
(1989 – 1997)
Trolley
Diesel
Vehicle Maintenance
0.36
0.41
Power/Fuel
0.18
0.20
Overhead Maintenance
0.36
0
Total Basic Operating per km
0.90
0.60
If we examine operating costs on a cost
per km basis for the above items, we find
that the trolley operates at a slightly
higher cost per km than the diesel bus.
This is largely due to the expenditures
associated with maintaining the overhead
infrastructure.
Cost per Kilometre is a commonly employed measurement of vehicle operating expenses. It is important to recognize that cost per kilometre is not
without bias when employed for purposes of comparing different modes, and therefore comparisons such as the above must be interpreted with
the following in mind:
1.
Any measurement of cost per kilometre will tend to favor the vehicle that operates the most kilometres. The fact that diesel buses operate over 25
million more km annually than trolleys in Edmonton will be reflected in a lower diesel figure. Maximizing trolley usage will tend to lower the cost per
kilometre, primarily because the cost of maintaining the overhead will be spread over a larger base.
2.
Cost per kilometre comparisons are based on fleet averages that ignore differing operating conditions. In Edmonton, trolley routes operate mostly
through the downtown core where loads are heavier and stops are more frequent. By contrast, the highest percentage of diesel kilometres are logged in
areas away from downtown where loads are lighter and stops less frequent. The latter conditions will tend to lower the cost per kilometre for the diesel
bus more than if conditions were equal.
3.
The cost per kilometre does not take into consideration the revenue generated by the vehicle. Consider that one could operate near empty diesel buses
with few stops and fully loaded trolleys with frequent stops, and the fact that the trolley is working harder, earning more revenue and providing more
service will not be reflected in cost per kilometre comparisons. The ideal operating conditions for the trolley are found on heavily travelled routes with
high patronage and frequent stops, where its operating costs are offset by higher revenues.
4.
Not all costs are included here. An important hidden cost is that associated with the health impacts of diesel bus emissions. Although these costs are not
paid for from City coffers, they do represent an added financial burden to citizens and taxpayers, not to mention their negative effects on the quality of
life for Edmontonians. Based on a figure of $75,000 per tonne of contaminant emissions (which some may view as high) the diesel bus would have an
added health care cost of $2.46/km compared to 0.69/km for the trolley. In other words, the health costs associated with diesel bus operation, according
to this formula, would be currently on the order of 3.5 times greater than those for the trolley. If added to the operating cost per kilometre, the trolley
becomes more economical to operate inspite of the bias against it inherent in the cost per kilometre comparison.
Cost figures: Edmonton Transit System
Comparative Maximum Levels of Toxic Air Contaminants by Mode (in g/km)
80
70
60
50
Carbon Monoxide
40
Oxides of Nitrogen
30
Particulates
20
10
Di
es
Cl
el
ea
n
Di
es
Di
Na
el
es
t
ur
el
Tr
al
/
ol
El
G
le
ec
as
y
tri
(E
c
dm
Hy
Tr
.P
br
ol
id
ow
le
y
er
(
g
Av
Tr
as
ol
g.
-fi
le
)
r
ed
y
(c
pl
oa
an
l-f
t)
ire
d
pl
an
Tr
ol
t)
le
y
(w
in
d)
0
Sources: NAAVC (1999), Edmonton Power (1993). NAAVC figures
based on tests using CBD cycle
Energy Requirements and Carbon Dioxide Emissions for a Subcompact Car
140
125
120
110
100
85
80
Energy Requirements in kWh per 100 km
Carbon Dioxide Emissions in grams per km
60
52
45
44
40
20
0
Gasoline Engine
Diesel Engine
Fuel Cell
Fuel cell emissions based on hydrogen generated from
natural gas or methanol. Note that fuel cell technology
still results in 77% of the CO2 emissions produced by a
diesel engine.
Sources: Daimler-Benz (1994); Ian Fisher, Electric Trolleybuses in Vancouver, 1997
Fuel Cells and GHG’s
Hydrogen needed to power fuel-celled vehicles is most readily obtained by stripping it from hydrocarbon
molecules found in fossil fuels. The process results in the release of Carbon Dioxide, the most common
greenhouse gas and the key target of the Kyoto Accord.
The chart below quantifies the greenhouse gas emissions produced in operating a Mercedes A-class
automobile with different power sources:
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions per 1,000 km (in kg of CO2e)
Current Gasoline Engine
Fuel Cell (H from fossil fuels)
Advanced "Clean" Gasoline
Methanol
Natural Gas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Source: The Economist (April 2000); Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development